Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
15 deleted posts later
You want to talk science? Open your mind. Pushing your talking points down your interlocutors throat is not discussing. Cherry picking facts is not discussing. This whole "i'm right and i'm here to prove you wrong" attitude is fundamentally intellectually dishonest, it's ok in Politics where people let emotions run wild, but here ? Come on.
Yac.
15 deleted posts later
You want to talk science? Open your mind. Pushing your talking points down your interlocutors throat is not discussing. Cherry picking facts is not discussing. This whole "i'm right and i'm here to prove you wrong" attitude is fundamentally intellectually dishonest, it's ok in Politics where people let emotions run wild, but here ? Come on.
Yac.
Climate change discussions can never be anything other than political because the topic is used as a vessel for imposing a pre-existing economic and social political agenda on society. Climate change and the political agenda behind it cannot be separated. That is unfortunate and very damaging to the integrity of the scientific method as practiced by human beings with all their flaws. When science and politics become intertwined the end result is little different than religious monarchies of old. Remember often scriptures were "peer reviewed" as well.
Climate change discussions can never be anything other than political because the topic is used as a vessel for imposing a pre-existing economic and social political agenda on society. Climate change and the political agenda behind it cannot be separated. That is unfortunate and very damaging to the integrity of the scientific method as practiced by human beings with all their flaws. When science and politics become intertwined the end result is little different than religious monarchies of old.
This is one perspective.
Another perspective is that science is integrated into many of the issues the world faces. When it comes to deciding public policies it's important to have the people who decide on those policies have at least some level of scientific literacy.
How can people fully express their power as a voter if they lack the scientific literacy on topics that matter for future political issues?
When we have people who really don't know much about science and who are standing in denial of it and then rising into power = a recipe for the complete breakdown of an informed democracy.
When we see politicians demanding educators in America teach evolution "not as fact, but as Theory" we are staring down the barrel of the dismantling of an informed democracy. Today we find people who are skeptical of vaccines, climate change, GMO's but yet they know absolutely nothing about the science behind any of these topics.
Science and politics have no choice but to be intertwined as science knowledge is crucial in helping us make decisions to help solve the problems we are facing.
What we are seeing today in the US are people who don't seem to know how to discern what is true from what is false. I have never seen this type of behavior at anytime in US history. The sooner people can understand what well established scientific truths are the sooner we can all get on with the political conversations on how to solve the problems that face us.
With respect to climate change, once people can understand that it's humans that are warming the planet, we can then have a scientifically literate political conversation about what we can do about it.
Even if you don't want to believe that humans are the culprit to the current warming...why not learn what we as humans can do to help reduce the warming trend?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Bully
Remember often scriptures were "peer reviewed" as well.
This is stunning to hear someone trying to reduce the scientific peer review process to how the scriptures evolved.
Science is an entire process in finding what is true...the creation of the scriptures was not.
This just proves what the skeptics have been saying all along though. That was the point that your friend was making. They keep fiddling the models downwards to match the data.
Scientists make adjustments to account for changes in the way both land and ocean temperature measurements have been made over the past 150 years.
Climate models are mathematical representations of the interactions between the atmosphere, oceans, land surface, ice – and the sun. This is clearly a very complex task, so models are built to estimate trends rather than events.
Quote:
How are Climate Models Tested?
Once a climate model is set up, it can be tested via a process known as “hind-casting.” This process runs the model from the present time backwards into the past. The model results are then compared with observed climate and weather conditions to see how well they match. This testing allows scientists to check the accuracy of the models and, if needed, revise its equations. Science teams around the world test and compare their model outputs to observations and results from other models.
While there are uncertainties with climate models, they successfully reproduce the past and have made predictions that have been subsequently confirmed by observations.
Scientists make adjustments to account for changes in the way both land and ocean temperature measurements have been made over the past 150 years.
Climate models are mathematical representations of the interactions between the atmosphere, oceans, land surface, ice – and the sun. This is clearly a very complex task, so models are built to estimate trends rather than events.
This is basically the same stuff you’ve copied and pasted earlier. We know why they claim to revise their models and we know what excuses they give for doing so. It’s how they do it that’s the problem. And how often. And the fact that they’re constantly revising it downwards. Climate scientists wonder why other scientific fields make fun at them. That’s basically why.
Climate change discussions can never be anything other than political because the topic is used as a vessel for imposing a pre-existing economic and social political agenda on society. Climate change and the political agenda behind it cannot be separated. That is unfortunate and very damaging to the integrity of the scientific method as practiced by human beings with all their flaws. When science and politics become intertwined the end result is little different than religious monarchies of old. Remember often scriptures were "peer reviewed" as well.
I completely disagree. Anything can be about politics or about facts, it depends on what you make of it. Facts don't wear partisan colors. Anyone willing to have a factual discussion about this, anyone willing to actually learn and find out what it's about, not pushing an agenda - can do it.
Are some scientists biased, or even paid to lie ? Sure. They're people after all, they are often just as dishonest.
But here ? We're not pushing for a reform, we're not reviewing a breakthrough, no one's career is on the line. You all (well, most of you) shouldn't get this emotional. You shouldn't nitpick/ignore the facts you disagree with, a real scientifically minded person wouldn't.
Just sayin.
Also, this is getting dangerously off topic. I'm open for a discussion like this in private, but here ? Please focus on the topic.
Yac.
We know why they claim to revise their models and we know what excuses they give for doing so.
How is hind-casting for the purpose of testing a climate model in order to make more accurate predication an excuse?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Citizen401
It’s how they do it that’s the problem.
How do they do it?
Why is it a problem?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Citizen401
And how often.
You can learn a lot from the links I've posted. Every single misunderstanding you continue to post is clearly explained in those links.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Citizen401
And the fact that they’re constantly revising it downwards.
You're missing some knowledge and I've posted several links that would help you fill in that missing knowledge.
Did you know that hind-casting is absolutely fundamental to how climate science models are constructed?
"Computer climate models are spectacularly complicated. They are full of things we can’t directly know or model, like cloud cover, and ocean currents, and practically all biological processes. And these interact in complex ways.
The first time these models are run, they almost certainly won’t produce anything like the actual climate model from (say) 1900 onwards - maybe they show warming at twice the known rate, or cooling, or periodic solutions, or anything. Million line programs modelling complex physical systems never work first time. It is a totally unreasonable expectation that they should."
"Hindcasting is fundamental to the development of computer climate models. At every step, models are compared to “reality” and if these don’t agree, reality wins. So the model is “refined” until it agrees with reality. And if you want your model published in Nature, you better make sure it works for at least the last 100 years of known climate change"
I suggest you take the time to read every single discussion on hind-casting. The comments you have made demonstrate that you have no understanding at all on the subject or function of climate models or how hind-casting is fundamental to the development of computer climate models.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Citizen401
Climate scientists wonder why other scientific fields make fun at them. That’s basically why.
No they don't in fact you won't find one credible scientist in any field who makes fun of climate science or the scientists who study it.
If you don't like the climate models that have successfully reproduced temperatures since 1900 globally...how about the other climate indicators? Care to discuss any other the other indicators?
For anyone who is interested in understanding how climate models and hind-casting work I encourage you to check out the links below or find other credible sources.
I will share the links that a Geophysicists shared on Quora.
How is hind-casting for the purpose of testing a climate model in order to make more accurate predication an excuse?
How do they do it?
Why is it a problem?
You can learn a lot from the links I've posted. Every single misunderstanding you continue to post is clearly explained in those links.
You're missing some knowledge and I've posted several links that would help you fill in that missing knowledge.
Did you know that hind-casting is absolutely fundamental to how climate science models are constructed?
"Computer climate models are spectacularly complicated. They are full of things we can’t directly know or model, like cloud cover, and ocean currents, and practically all biological processes. And these interact in complex ways.
The first time these models are run, they almost certainly won’t produce anything like the actual climate model from (say) 1900 onwards - maybe they show warming at twice the known rate, or cooling, or periodic solutions, or anything. Million line programs modelling complex physical systems never work first time. It is a totally unreasonable expectation that they should."
"Hindcasting is fundamental to the development of computer climate models. At every step, models are compared to “reality” and if these don’t agree, reality wins. So the model is “refined” until it agrees with reality. And if you want your model published in Nature, you better make sure it works for at least the last 100 years of known climate change"
I suggest you take the time to read every single discussion on hind-casting. The comments you have made demonstrate that you have no understanding at all on the subject or function of climate models or how hind-casting is a fundamental to the development of computer climate models.
No they don't in fact you won't find one credible scientist in any field who makes fun of climate science or the scientists who study it.
If you don't like the climate models that have successfully reproduced temperatures since 1900 globally...how about the other climate indicators? Care to discuss any other the other indicators?
Again I get the impression you’re copy pasting things verbatim apparently without going to the effort to understand the topic for yourself. Hindcasting is basically a term for matching models to historic data. It’s not a free licence to constantly adjust the parameters when those models are falsified again and again, which is what is going on in climate science. Your own links explain this concept. It would help if you actually read these rather than copy paste your google search results on faith.
There is nothing new or special with this idea in any empirical science. The reason why they came up with the term is because backtesting ‘after the fact’ happens so often in climate modelling they had to think up a cool word for to make it seem as if they know what they’re doing. In reality it’s just a contrivance.
Climate science ranks somewhere above psychology and somewhere below comparative anatomy in the reputability stakes. It’s not the worst but hardly stellar overall in terms of its speciality standing.
Last edited by Citizen401; 03-20-2018 at 03:01 PM..
Again I get the impression you’re copy pasting things verbatim apparently without bothering to think for yourself regarding the subject material.
Your impressions are unfounded.
I have posted plenty of literature for you to read...it's clear to me that you are not interested in learning anything that does not match your personal narrative.
You clearly have made statements that tell me you know absolute nothing about hind-casting or why it's necessary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Citizen401
Hindcasting is basically a term for matching models to data.
Funny that's not what you stated earlier. You are leaving out the main point of hind-casting. Hind-casting models are run and if they don't match observations with past observations, then these models are corrected to better fit the past observations. ***If the model matches up with past observations then no correction is needed and thus the model is deemed more reliable.
You are having difficulty because you won't open your mind to learning something new.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Citizen401
There is. I thing new or special with that idea in any empirical science. The reason why they came up with the tent is because it happens so often in climate modelling they had to think up a cool word for it to make it seem as if they know what they’re doing. In reality it’s just a contrivance.
Here again you are demonstrating you have not even a basic understanding on what hind-casting is or why it's done.
I recommend you take a crash course in computer modeling with an emphasis on complex computer modeling.
I also recommend that you read the link I posted: Climate Models and Their Evaluation
I think you will find that your comments out you as a person with a personal agenda who really has no idea what they are taking about.
I asked you specific questions in my last post and you dodged every single one of them and refuse to engage in a discussion based on facts....you only want to insert your personal narrative that does not match any of the facts.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
